Wal-Mart gun purchase program, soon to be copied at Weapons World Options

[Fuchs]

So why again are most hard drugs illegal? By that reasoning, you can trust your citizens to responsibly handle anything.

Based upon my country's experience (Needle park, anyone?), I fully support the legalisation of hard drugs, provided they are given out to addicts only, and measures are taken to make sure there's no fallout (driving under influence, etc.) from it.

It's better for the addicts, who can live like human beings and don't have to steal or sell their bodies to get money for drugs, and get safer and cleaner drugs as well, it's better for the rest of the population, who doesn't get mugged, robbed, or otherwise victimised by drug-addicts in need of money for more drugs, it's better for the cops, who have less work and can focus on other crimes, it's better for the country since there are less costs.

So, yes, legalise the drugs, or at the very least, give out hard drugs to addicts. It's better for everyone.

[CanRay]

I'm leaving this thead now, with only a single statement from Jon "Money" Johnson.

"They can have my Browning, Colt, Kalish, and whatever else I got on me when they pry it out of my cold, dead, titanium reenforced hands! And you better believe I'll be surrounded by the dead attempters, and out of ammo when it happens!"

[Critias]

So why again are most hard drugs illegal? By that reasoning, you can trust your citizens to responsibly handle anything.

Because that would mean admitting the "War on Drugs" has been a pathetic, ridiculous, society-wrecking, failure, since day one.

[Fleming]

Yeah, the endemic violence of Switzerland due to the tens of thousands of automatic weapons that they foolishly allow their citizens to possess is known worldwide. It has a horrible murder rate of 0.9 per 100000. Unlike the civilized UK with its the draconian gun laws, where the rate was 50% higher. Or France, where it's only 95% higher. So clearly, as these examples show, more gun control reduces gun crime.

50% higher? Would that then be a rate of 1.35 per 100000? And a whopping 1.755 for France? Well, then I guess my next vacation in France, it won't be so crowded anymore...

Just out of curiosity: what's the rate in the US?

[Moon-Hawk]

Why do I suddenly imagine the 'subversive group with informers' as taken to its logical extreme, with a resistence group being completely made out of informants from different agencies? Not realistic I'm sure, but rather funny.

That reminds me of an RPG scenario I heard about once. There was a big crime being planned, and a number of agencies/organizations heard about it and tried to get someone in. The end result was the entire team was made up of informants from different agencies, each of whom was sure that every other person was a criminal, and they were all planning/executing this crime and trying to stab each other in the back. It sounded like great fun.

It saddens me that saying so is "brutally racist," because the simple fact is it's largely the case here, too (though they mostly aren't "immigrant" groups, nowadays). But even when a civil rights leader and good-natured father figure type to multiple generations (Bill Cosby, one of the most sincere guys to come out of Hollywood) says so, and tries to address the issue of thugs and murderers instead of the issue of the guns they use, he get labelled a racist by his own race.

It's a sad state of affairs, where all anyone needs to do to deflect any sort of blame is shout "racist" and point at you.

Indeed. That word gets thrown around so much it's sickening. It's not "racist" to be aware of a true statistic. It's not racist to say that "group X is responsible for a disproportionate amount of action Y". It is racist to take that statement and add "...and this individual is part of group X, therefore I shall assume this person will perform action Y". A lot of people just don't get the difference.

[hermit]

From my personal experience (having several family members who have rap sheets as long as my leg) criminals purchase firearms off the street, but where do street guns come from? they're grabbed during home robberies.

And if there are no guns in homes to begin with, where would the guns then come from?

50% higher? Would that then be a rate of 1.35 per 100000? And a whopping 1.755 for France? Well, then I guess my next vacation in France, it won't be so crowded anymore...

Just out of curiosity: what's the rate in the US?

5,7 in 2006 (source)

Based upon my country's experience (Needle park, anyone?), I fully support the legalisation of hard drugs, provided they are given out to addicts only, and measures are taken to make sure there's no fallout (driving under influence, etc.) from it.

It's better for the addicts, who can live like human beings and don't have to steal or sell their bodies to get money for drugs, and get safer and cleaner drugs as well, it's better for the rest of the population, who doesn't get mugged, robbed, or otherwise victimised by drug-addicts in need of money for more drugs, it's better for the cops, who have less work and can focus on other crimes, it's better for the country since there are less costs.

So, yes, legalise the drugs, or at the very least, give out hard drugs to addicts. It's better for everyone.

Seconded, at least concerning addicts ... though controlled drug sales might help make the drugs market less lucrative for OC gangs.

[Critias]

And if there are no guns in homes to begin with, where would the guns then come from?

From cops, soldiers, grandfathered-in firearms, other countries, they'd be hand-made (enough people know how)...get it into your skull, Hermit. Prohibition didn't work, and it isn't a Right (with a capital r) promised to us since our nation's founding.

There is positively no way anyone will ever take every gun of the streets of America without those same streets being painted red first. And even then, when the dust settles and the blood cools and everyone that stood up to keep their guns is labeled a "terrorist" by the wide that won (not coincidentally, it will be the side with the most, and the biggest, guns)...the losing side will still find ways to get ahold of, or create, firearms.

To fantasize otherwise is nothing but the most ridiculous of liberal make-a-wish'ing.

[hermit]

From cops, soldiers, grandfathered-in firearms, other countries, they'd be hand-made (enough people know how)...get it into your skull, Hermit. Prohibition didn't work, and it isn't a Right (with a capital r) promised to us since our nation's founding.

That'd drive the price through the sky, or require the US Army to really be a bunch of crooks, which, for all I know, it isn't.

To fantasize otherwise is nothing but the most ridiculous of liberal make-a-wish'ing.

Sure, guns will never go away, but having them controlled more tightly DOES work in other places (Switzerland being more of an exception to that rule).

[Fuchs]

Hermit, you don't get it: gun control is useless. It does not work. Your utopia of gun control required a police state of such proportions it'd make the StaSi organisation look like a bunch of kindergardeners.

You label every instance where guns are wide spread and no crime wave follow as an exception, and cite every instance where draconian gun laws are in effect but crime doesn't go down as an exeception, and draw the sick conclusion that we need more gun control?

That mentality leads to something really opposed to what western democracy stands for.

Again, will you advocate castrating all men next, to reduce rape cases? Your logic would demand it.

[hermit]

You label every instance where guns are wide spread and no crime wave follow as an exception, and cite every instance where draconian gun laws are in effect but crime doesn't go down as an exeception, and draw the sick conclusion that we need more gun control?

No. I look at countries where gun control has always been very strict (like Japan) and compare them to countries where owning a gun is considered a civil right (like the US) and see that the US has five times as many muders as Japan. Also, Canada and switzerland don't have notably lower crime rates than countries that don't hand out guns to everyone (like switzerland). So saying guns make crime go down is just wrong. Now, it would be right to say that widespread gun owndership doesn't have to drive crime up, but it does not give you any advantage compared to gun control countries, and it might gain you a serious rise in murders.

Also, those countries aren't less democratic than switzerland or the US. So where exactly do you get the idea that guns for everyone is a basic democratic principle from?

Hermit, you don't get it: gun control is useless. It does not work. Your utopia of gun control required a police state of such proportions it'd make the StaSi organisation look like a bunch of kindergardeners.

Uhm, no? It works just fine with much smaller secret services.

Again, will you advocate castrating all men next, to reduce rape cases? Your logic would demand it.

No, and repeating that doesn't make it less absurd.

[Fuchs]

In both cases, you ban something that is abused by a small minority from the whole population to pervent its abuses. If you can't see the parallels, you're blind. Castrating all men is the logical conclusion of banning all guns. It's not as if we need the things to live, and reproduction can be handled with artificial insemination, so why continue to let men be able to rape women?

See the parallel now?

[hermit]

Eh, sure. Because the vast majority of guns is used to shoot people consentually. Riiiight.

Maybe you should just drop that comparison. It's absurd.

[Moon-Hawk]

Eh, sure. Because the vast majority of guns is used to shoot people consentually. Riiiight.

Wrong parallel. "The vast majority of guns are used responsibly," would be the correct parallel, which is, incidentally, true.

[hermit]

How do you use a gun responsibly? Not at all? Then what would you need it for?

[kzt]

All I can say is, if keep thinking that, you may sleep easier, but you'll still be wrong. Once you look into this (hint: Eastern Europe), you'll know that one can get guns easily, especially thanks to Schengen. If you want an illegal gun, you'll get one, easily. Especially if you're a criminal with contacts.

I know someone who says he arranged for a meeting between a soviet officer overseeing an essentially abandoned base and some right-wing Italians. Apparently some money changed hands and hundred tons of mortars, machine guns, ammunition, anti-tank rockets and bulk explosives got moved from eastern Europe to western Europe to await the coming threat to the true church.

[IQ Zero]

How do you use a gun responsibly? Not at all? Then what would you need it for?

To protect yourself, your friends, and your family? What else of course.

Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

[hermit]

To protect yourself, your friends, and your family? What else of course.

Preemtively (gun down any suspicious person close to your property) or do you wait for the potential threat to make the first move?

[Moon-Hawk]

How do you use a gun responsibly? Not at all? Then what would you need it for?

Ah, see, now we arrive at the crux of the issue. You think guns are just for "bad people" to kill "good people" and you don't see any other use. Or so it appears.
Yes, that's one of the ways. Another way is for hunting. Another way is recreational target shooting. Another way is not using it but keeping it (along with everyone else) as insurance against your own government, should they decide to be naughty. Another way is to kill someone who is attempting to kill you or your family. Another way (that requires lots of people to have them) is as a deterrent from other countries who might be thinking of starting trouble on your soil.

[Moon-Hawk]

Preemtively (gun down any suspicious person close to your property) or do you wait for the potential threat to make the first move?

Whoa! Where the f(#& did that come from? Okay, this train is going to crazy-town, I wanna get off.

[kzt]

50% higher? Would that then be a rate of 1.35 per 100000? And a whopping 1.755 for France? Well, then I guess my next vacation in France, it won't be so crowded anymore...

Just out of curiosity: what's the rate in the US?

Depends on where you choose. In DC, where all guns are illegal, it's (2005) a mere 31.8. It's on the decline from the peak of 52.7 in 1995. In Utah, where they have the most liberal concealed carry rules in the US (state universities can't ban guns), it's 1.8.

[hermit]

Another way is not using it but keeping it (along with everyone else) as insurance against your own government, should they decide to be naughty.

Hoarding weapons to become a terrorist if the (democratically decided) policies of the country don't suit you? Sounds pretty responsible ...

Another way (that requires lots of people to have them) is as a deterrent from other countries who might be thinking of starting trouble on your soil.

Didn't save the country with the largest per person rate of firearms from a US or Soviet attack (Afghanistan).

Another way is for hunting. Another way is recreational target shooting.

It is. Doesn't require handguns though, at least hunting.

Another way is to kill someone who is attempting to kill you or your family. (...) Whoa! Where the f(#& did that come from? Okay, this train is going to crazy-town, I wanna get off.

How do you determine someone is going to shoot you or your family? If he fires his gun, it's too late, and if he doesn't do you the favor of either trying to shoot you and yours with a rifle or beingt much of a talker before ... how do you determine that, if you don't plan to act on suspicion and hunches? HAndguns can be concealed quite well, after all.

[IQ Zero]

Preemtively (gun down any suspicious person close to your property) or do you wait for the potential threat to make the first move?

A suspicious person close to my property will prompt me to clear my weapon for use (not draw it mind you, just make sure it is nearby).

A suspicious person ON my property gets shot. Of course, he has to go over the glass shard topped 4 meter wall first. That means he is breaking and entering. If I'm in a good mood, I'd only use the rock salt loaded shotgun shells, if not, then shoot to disable (knees and ankles are good targets). If he has a weapon of any sort in sight, I go for center mass, at least three rounds, probably because my favorite shooter now is a .22 that we are modifying for target shooting.

Anyways, is THAT how you look at gun owners? That we are a bunch of trigger-happy yahoo's? I'll have you know that part of the training that my mother drilled into me about guns is that you do NOT aim at someone unless you intend to shoot them. A responsible gun owner is one that knows WHEN to shoot (at the very least to not get into trouble with the law).

[hermit]

Depends on where you choose. In DC, where all guns are illegal, it's (2005) a mere 31.8. It's on the decline from the peak of 52.7 in 1995. In Utah, where they have the most liberal concealed carry rules in the US (state universities can't ban guns), it's 1.8.

Hunh. And neighbouring countries liberally selling guns to DC gangsters obviopusly has nothing to do with that, all the guns used in DC are smuggled in from Eastern Europe, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Anyways, is THAT how you look at gun owners? That we are a bunch of trigger-happy yahoo's? I'll have you know that part of the training that my mother drilled into me about guns is that you do NOT aim at someone unless you intend to shoot them. A responsible gun owner is one that knows WHEN to shoot (at the very least to not get into trouble with the law).

The responsible part would be about who you shoot, too, if you ask me ... however, you live in Manila, right? If so, you live in a very different surroundings than a western state, so I can understand your point of view somewhat.

[CanRay]

Alright, said I was getting off this thread, but I gotta get back on.

Want a reason for guns?

Fine.

My family would not be here without the family "Hunting Rifle", which was brought back from The War.

I know of more than one family that says the same. Many would have starved to death without being able to hunt with those rifles.

Advance a few years, and those kids then used those same skills used to save their families lives by feeding them in a Second War.

Now, it's been a few generations, and, luckily, $Diety willing, I never had to find myself in that position, neither have my parents. But the point was made to us, quite clearly.

Most of my generation forgot those lessons, but I'm glad and proud to say that I haven't. And I damn will teach my own kids them. I just wish I could teach them those skills, "Just In Case", or to give them a connection to their honored history.

A firearm is a tool. Nothing. More. It is as moral as it's weilder. No more, no less.

You want another weapon that's dangerous, and has killed even *MORE* people than firearms? KNIVES!!! They're big, sharp, deadly! And in EVERY HOME!!! Every one has at least one! Danger abounds!!! Stabbings happen every day!!!

LOOK! A Bread Knife! It's serrated, obviously designed to RIP flesh and prevent it from healing! AND THIS! AN ELECTRIC KNIFE! Military hardware of the most nefarious means!

And they're not neccessary either. I mean, food comes pre-packaged now in Insta-Portioned Packaging. Hey, add on a plastic fork, and you don't even need steel silverware! You could put an eye out with that, too!

Care to comment on those "Dangerous Weapons", Hermit?

[Moon-Hawk]

Hoarding weapons to become a terrorist if the (democratically decided) policies of the country don't suit you? Sounds pretty responsible ...

Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you're just deliberately misunderstanding me to "prove" your point. If a government is following democratically decided policies, then it is not being naughty. If a president decides he would rather not step down at the end of his term and convinces enough of the military to back him and become a dictator-for-life, that would qualify as "naughtiness."

Didn't save the country with the largest per person rate of firearms from a US or Soviet attack (Afghanistan).

The singular form of data is not anecdote. When one of the largest, most powerful countries in the world decides to pick on a smaller, less-developed country, no amount of small arms will stop them, that doesn't invalidate the point.

Preemtively (gun down any suspicious person close to your property) or do you wait for the potential threat to make the first move?

Damn it I wish I'd been fast enough to quote that before you edited it. You know damn well what that crazy-town comment was about.